You make my point. The "slippery slope" point. Air bags, fine. Seat belts, fine,
but don't make them mandatory. They don't always save lives. Running first
responder on an accident, I saw first hand where four passengers were involved in
a major accident. One passenger in the front seat wearing a seat belt still had a
bloody injury and the blood covered his hands. So much of it that he couldn't
depress the button to release the belt. He died when the car exploded. The driver
wasn't wearing a belt, was injured but escaped. He tried to undo his passengers
belt but couldn't reach it in time. Had to get away before it was consumed in
flames.

Sure they may save lives. More than not. But let the occupants make that decision,
not the law. If the law is mandatory, let's see them enforce it on motorcyclists.
Rick

Philip Stortz wrote:

> i doubt that very much, please mention a source if you have one.  the
> resulting increase in congestion would likely lead to more rash behavior
> and much, much more road rage.  not to mention the loss of life as all
> those vehicles blocked the roads and kept ambulances responding to non
> motor vehicle calls grid locked.  not to mention the increase in
> pollution (which certainly shortens lives and lowers the quality of
> life), you may burn less fuel per unit time at slow speeds, but not per
> mile when you factor in congestion.  a parking lot of running engines
> produces a lot of pollution and doesn't go far.
>
> rixy04 wrote:
> >
> > Reducing the maximum speed limit to 30 mph on all highways and 15 mph on all
> > side roads. This will reduce the auto deaths by 96%. ;-)
> > Rick
> >
> > Robert Ussery wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I haven't seen covered in this discussion is the slippery slope
> > > argument. First it was airbags. Now it's seatbelts. Next?
> >
> > --

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics